Regulatory simplification for companies

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Simplifying regulations for companies is more relevant than ever. In a restless world where uncertainty characterizes both the economy and geopolitics, we need a strong and competitive business sector. It is the companies that build our welfare, finance our defense, and secure our food supply. Simplifying for those who create jobs and drive innovation is therefore one of the most important tasks we have. Let me therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions.

Mr. Speaker! In these days, it feels far from obvious to quote the President of the USA, but once in a while he was wiser, was named Ronald Reagan, and stated that the most terrifying words an entrepreneur knows are "I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help".

In the autumn, I experienced how well this unfortunately holds true. LRF Södermanland organized a so-called "rules safari" and invited politicians and officials from all levels: municipality, region, parliament, and county administrative board. The purpose was to highlight the thicket of rules that the green industry faces. It was an excellent initiative. But when we were welcomed by the farm owner, she stated that we were at her farm specifically because no one else dared to receive us. They hesitated to invite us out of fear that it would turn out that they had missed something.

There we stood in the Södermanland soil on one of the farms that is part of a Swedish industry that is absolutely world-class when it comes to both environmental and climate considerations as well as animal welfare and product quality, and I was ashamed. I was ashamed of Swedish politics, the exercise of authority by agencies, and legislation.

This is obviously not specific to Sörmland, but this is how it looks across the entire country. Entrepreneurs constantly carry a worry about having missed any of the nearly 700 regulatory requirements that agriculture on average has to comply with.

Swedish regulatory zeal and over-bureaucratization have long gone too far. It is a threat to our own competitiveness, growth, self-sufficiency, and security. But it also contributes to an insecurity among our entrepreneurs, and that is, of course, unacceptable.

We need to go back to an order where farmers can be farmers and not bureaucrats. Sweden needs a major wave of deregulation. A de-bureaucratization that benefits our entrepreneurs would, of course, also contribute to making the state more efficient, which would be a boon in itself. Business policy is not rocket science. It is largely about not making things complicated and about simplifying. We must ensure that the rules we have are relevant and contribute to order and social benefit, and that the exercise of authority intended to ensure they are followed is service-oriented and legally secure.

Mr. Speaker! A comprehensive transformation process is underway. The simplification journey that the Moderate-led government and the Tidö agreement have begun started with Sweden's EU presidency, during which competitiveness was put on the agenda.

Our uneasy global situation has since reinforced a sense of urgency that makes even the EU Commission now combine green with growth and has launched simplification packages with the aim, among other things, to facilitate companies' reporting work. It is our Moderate MEP Jörgen Warborn who is the chief negotiator for parts of the work with the EU's simplification package.

Here in Sweden, our Moderate-led government has divided the national work of reducing the bureaucratic burden into three parts: agency exercise, regulatory simplification, and implementation of EU directives.

Regarding the exercise of public authority, Swedish agencies and authorities have, in both budget and regulatory letters, received a clear mandate to reduce the regulatory burden and administrative costs for companies, as well as to improve the quality of interaction and service level towards the business sector. It is a clear political mandate that Myndighetssverige now has to deliver on. Furthermore, the agencies have received both resources and a clear mission to shorten their processing times. Even the permit processes are to be made more efficient, legally secure, and predictable.

The government has further appointed two functions: a simplification council and an implementation council. The simplification council has the task of clearing out the existing regulatory flora, and the implementation council's mission is, quite simply, to put a stop to Swedish gold-plating of EU directives. These are two broad and long-term measures that have the serious potential to reduce the regulatory burden.

Mr. Speaker! Regulatory simplification is not just about us having relevant legislation and adequate regulatory frameworks, it is also about what kind of culture we want, about trust and confidence in our exercise of authority, about respect for entrepreneurship and about a favorable business climate that makes it simple, safe and profitable to be an entrepreneur in our country.

It is entrepreneurship that is the key to Sweden's prosperity, and it is free enterprise that is the key to development. With a good business climate, the conditions are strengthened for more Swedish business ideas and inventions that not only create the jobs that finance our common welfare but also ensure that we meet the future better equipped with new solutions for the challenges and transitions we are faced with.

It is a clear business line and a good business climate that enables a larger defense budget in uncertain times, and it is a favorable business climate and thus lowered costs for the companies which in turn lowers food prices, to mention some effects of the important regulatory simplification work.

Please note this in particular: It is therefore not populist moves such as boycotts of Swedish companies that strengthen Swedes' economy, but it is hard political work for a better business climate that yields results that will be felt in the wallets of families with children.

The Moderates, together with the Tidö colleagues, have embarked on an extensive simplification journey. This is evident in the Committee on Industry's report. It is also stated there that there is a broad political commitment to the issue, and that is fundamentally good.

I note that all reservations raise issues that are included in the government's preparation of the regulatory simplification work. This creates conditions for good progress in the political work and thus for strengthened Swedish entrepreneurship.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Anna af Sillén for the speech on an important issue, which I believe we will discuss a lot during the coming months given the great work that the EU Commission is currently doing.

I noted that Anna af Sillén, in her speech, spoke about a wave of deregulation. It is absolutely something that one can advocate for, but I would like to have some concretization regarding what Anna af Sillén means by a wave of deregulation. I would not say that it is the same thing as a wave of simplification. To deregulate means to remove things.

We have rules because they have purposes. Then it is clear that there are rules that we must improve. It is clear that we need to improve our regulatory frameworks and that we always need to conduct a consequence analysis to see if certain regulatory frameworks are outdated or just burdensome, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.

The Moderates and the Tidö parties have, in line with Anna af Sillén in the speech we have just heard, had incredibly high support when it comes to the issue of simplifying regulations, especially during the two past parliamentary terms. Now, Mr. Speaker, they have held power for nearly three years.

I would like to ask Anna af Sillén: Which regulatory simplification that the Tidö parties have proposed has created more jobs in Sweden? Which regulatory simplifications have made it easier for companies? Which regulatory simplification has ensured that we have more newly started companies in Sweden?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro, for the questions! I am pleased that the Social Democrats now also feel a great commitment to the issue, even though we lacked some activity in the work during the past eight years.

My answer to the question of what I mean by a wave of deregulation is simplification work, exactly the kind that we have initiated. The Simplification Council's task is, I think, perhaps the clearest answer to the member's questions. The Simplification Council has the task of going through existing regulations and both clearing and simplifying, as well as submitting proposals on this to the government.

The Implementation Council has the task of reducing over-implementation to ensure that we implement EU directives at a level that works for Swedish business and Swedish competitiveness.

The self-evident starting point is that rules are obviously needed and that Sweden obviously needs laws, but the Moderaterna and the Tidö parties are possessed by the idea that we should land on a level of regulation that is reasonable and where the justification for the existence of the rules is that they actually solve societal problems and contribute to a social benefit.

When it comes to which measures work best in the simplification work, I believe the keywords here are patience and perseverance. I believe strongly in the work of the Simplification Council and the Implementation Council. We have already seen delivered proposals on this, but it is extremely clear that it is the long-term, broad measures that will make a real difference for Swedish entrepreneurs in the long run.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting. On one hand, people say that the Social Democrats had eight years and that nothing happened then, which is obviously not true, and on the other hand, people say that patience was needed in the issue of simplifying regulations.

Can we expect that it will take eight years with the Tidö government until a political simplification proposal comes that creates jobs in our country? Do we need to wait even longer for more companies to feel that it is easier to start a company in Sweden and that their companies, above all, will not go under?

What is the core of my question, Mr. Speaker, is that when one has a high level of support, one is expected to deliver. I believe that voters, entrepreneurs, and individuals – above all the wage earners in Sweden who are currently seeing themselves being laid off – expect that one delivers on the proposals.

Right now, it is obvious that the Tidö government can check off boxes in its agreement, which was signed in some castle one night, and say "now we have introduced an implementation council" and "now we have introduced a simplification council." Very good, but these are only paper products. It is clear that they exist, but what has come out of them?

I do not demand that any revolutionary simplifications should have been introduced in a year, but Anna af Sillén has not pointed out a single one. I would very much like to have concrete examples. Can Anna af Sillén respond regarding what is being discussed right now? It would be interesting both for me, who is in opposition and does not have the same opportunity for dialogue with the government, and for the listeners who are listening to this debate and who are affected by the record-low growth, the record-high unemployment, and the record-high number of bankruptcies for small businesses.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, member, for the questions! Let me just say initially that no one will be happier than I at the thought of the Tidö parties governing for another eight years. Let us hope that it really becomes so! It would mean continued strong momentum in the important work of simplifying regulations.

I think one should remember the overall picture. Sweden has great challenges, many of them created by a nonchalance from the previous red-green government. This applies as much to the energy issue, which is extremely important for Swedish companies, as to the security issues, which also affect Swedish business. This is a government and a Tidö cooperation that has worked extremely intensively with societal challenges that to the highest degree affect business.

When it comes to regulatory simplification, I would, on the contrary, like to assert that I was very clear in my speech regarding the broad measures the government has taken to simplify for companies. This applies to both individual proposals and, perhaps above all, governance and management. Therefore, I believe that the mandate to Myndighetssverige is extremely important. It has been given both in specific assignments to agencies and county administrative boards and in regulatory letters: They shall simplify regulations and strengthen their service towards companies.

There are concrete examples of individual proposals. We know that paperless receipts, for example, were incredibly appreciated. But it is the big picture, the big ocean, that it is about. And we have patience, Member Castro! The Social Democrats, on the other hand, lost patience already now and cut their rule simplification work in the latest budget by nearly 30 million kronor. That does not drive any simplification work.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anna af Sillén, for your description of how important this is for competitiveness and how important it is to have better rules at the EU level! Anna af Sillén also describes the clear instructions that have been given to authorities and the establishment of two new councils to achieve regulatory simplification.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is: How does the member think it has gone in concrete terms over two and a half years? Is there anything that, after two and a half years, calls for criticism because it is moving too slowly? Is there anything the member is thinking about regarding the fact that the new criteria for how rules should be evaluated have become very weak?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist, for the questions!

I believe that my answer to that question will always be that I wish it had gone faster – absolutely. It is easier to encourage others to be patient than to be patient oneself. Naturally, this is an area where I would wish that we constantly increased the pace. But I have great respect for the fact that it is large mills that must grind in this, and I believe again that the important parts will be about governance and leadership in the work.

When it comes to investigations, impact assessments and not least the Council of Legislation's work regarding this, there are several proposals from the Productivity Commission, not least regarding how that work should be strengthened. This is now being prepared within the Government Offices, and it will be interesting to see where one lands there.

Consequence assessments have absolutely been a weakness generally in Swedish authority culture – and within Swedish politics, we must honestly say. We need to strengthen ourselves when it comes to this, and I believe that in all cases, improvements can be made here.

But I also want to emphasize that a very broad work is underway. I believe that one must see it and let it take its course. One must, of course, at all times be prepared to sharpen directives in order to ensure the greatest possible efficiency in this important work.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anna af Sillén, for the attempt at an answer!

Let us look at what the Simplification Council has done. This council was discussed already on the day the government took office, and it started one and a half years later. The Simplification Council has received 152 proposals, of which 8 proposals have come from private individuals or individual companies. The rest have come from corporate organizations. That is very good, and they are known from before. But one cannot say that the Simplification Council has achieved any major success so far, with eight proposals.

The Implementation Council was also talked about from the first day of the government. It was started one and a half years later. The council is to ensure that EU rules are not over-implemented. Ten months later, now in March, the Implementation Council released a report. They have found a reporting obligation for certain types of demolition work that is over-implemented. One must report this twice, both to the municipality and to an authority. It is good that this is discovered, but after two and a half years, it is perhaps a bit thin as a result.

My question is: Has the government really taken the actions required? These are good institutions, but if they do not get the power and the resources they need, it will still just be a number of PowerPoints.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist, for further questions regarding this!

I would say it like this: Success is the fact that one now has these two important tools in place. One has a simplification council with the aim of reviewing the existing regulatory flora and an implementation council with the aim of counteracting gold-plating of EU directives. It is the first time that Sweden or a Swedish government takes these measures. It is very welcome, and it is very necessary. I think that in that situation, one can feel understanding that the startup phase may become somewhat longer than one had intended and desired.

When I speak with the chairs of both councils, I encounter nothing other than a strong determination to deliver as quickly and as powerfully as one can on their mandate. I have a great confidence in that.

Let me remind again that the Moderate-led government has done this alongside a number of other very difficult tasks regarding Swedish societal challenges, such as the energy issue, the safety issue, and so on. We do this in a very uncertain world which also puts us in a difficult position now when even the defense issue is more topical than we would ever want it to be.

Success is, therefore, the fact that Sweden has a government that thinks long-term and correctly in the work of simplification.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of our reservation 3 under point 2 regarding the Regulatory Council and impact assessments.

With that said, I would also like to reflect briefly on the broad consensus prevailing in the political arena. This is a fairly broad consideration regarding all types of regulatory simplification issues, and there are only eight reservations, three of which belong to the Sverigedemokraterna.

It is fundamentally positive that there is a political consensus on the whole, linked to the fact that in most parties, at least in the rhetoric, there is a political ambition to facilitate and create better conditions for the business sector to operate from the outside.

At the same time, we know that it has been difficult for all governments that have had this expressed ambition to be able to deliver concretely on such a promise and such a desire. I will return a little to what we have managed to achieve so far in the Tidö parties, but first I want to emphasize the seriousness of this.

We are talking about the regulatory burden, which according to Tillväxtverket amounts to approximately 370 billion annually for the Swedish business community. It is a sum so large that it is difficult to put your finger on. But let us play with the idea and let me provide a hypothetical example, Mr. Speaker: If we had removed these 370 billion, they could instead have become revenues in the companies, or rather costs that would not have occurred. Then they would have been invested through employment, new factories, modernization, streamlining, and so on. Then we would not only have seen a sharp increase in our growth in Sweden, but this would also have resulted in more tax payments, which we in politics would have had the privilege to distribute and manage.

Mr. Speaker! 370 billion means a couple of nuclear reactors. It means that we could have easily upgraded the defense based on the newly set high ambitions from the Tidö parties.

Now, it is not quite so simple, Mr. Speaker, as that one can just make a few decisions here and then save the business sector 370 billion in costs for regulatory burden. I do, however, think it is reasonable that we include that figure in this debate to understand the magnitudes we are dealing with. Through that, we also know why this issue is so important.

It was against that background that the Sverigedemokraterna were the first party in Sweden's Riksdag to present a committee motion that exclusively concerned issues of regulatory simplification. In it, we pushed for a systematic regulatory simplification effort, for strengthened impact assessments, for a stop to the over-implementation of EU directives, and for a simplification council, as well as for individual legislative and regulatory relaxations in specific cases. Large parts of what we have long pushed for have now become reality or are about to become reality thanks to the Tidö parties' active engagement in this area, which I naturally view very positively.

We can look at what we have achieved so far – this was raised by Anna af Sillén before me. We now have a simplification council and an implementation council in place. In practice, this means that there are bodies in the state apparatus whose sole purpose is to review existing legislation with existing rules and try to find proposals on where simplification can be achieved, where costs can be cut, and where there is no motive for the law or the rule in question – or for that part in cases where it concerns laws and rules that fail in their purpose.

At the same time, the council shall look at all incoming EU legislation to ensure that we in Sweden accommodate this in a way that, while certainly meeting the requirements coming from the EU, also means that we do not choose to make it more difficult or more expensive for Swedish companies to comply with these requirements than it perhaps is for companies operating in other member states within the union.

We have just recently received the first proposal from the Simplification Council. I think it is worth mentioning in this context. These are relatively newly established bodies, and I look forward to following their work. But to still touch upon the first proposal, it concerns the fact that companies should be able to make deductions for input VAT when purchasing or leasing all types of light trucks. At present, the body type determines whether one can make that type of deduction in one's company or not.

It is probably difficult to justify why one type of light truck should be VAT-exempt or VAT-reduced and another should not, when they are used in the same way by the individual entrepreneur. It is good that the policy-making looks at this and receives this concrete input. It is something that we will take with us into upcoming budget negotiations. At the same time, it does mean that the state would lose out on VAT payments, which implies other political priorities.

I hope and believe that more sharp proposals will come from the Simplification Council. One message from politics is that we like cost-neutral ones. They make it a bit easier to negotiate when they are then to be discussed between different parties.

Our challenge is that we cannot calculate the dynamic effects. It is very possible that this VAT removal, if one follows the Simplification Council's proposal, would have resulted in more acquiring another light truck for their company or hiring another one, and that we would ultimately have more tax revenue to distribute from the political side. But when we implement it, we can only calculate statically on the loss from the state treasury that then arises. However, there will certainly be more proposals from there in the near future that we can also take with us.

I think it is important that now that we have installed these new bodies, those concerned, both the active ones within them and the entrepreneurs whom they are appointed to and aim to promote, dare to come and approach the politicians and say: Now we have a concrete proposal from the Simplification Council. What do you do? They should also be able to come to the politicians and say, if that were the case: Now we experience that the Implementation Council has missed this. In that way, at least we from the Tidö parties can follow up on what we have achieved so far to ensure that it becomes as purposeful as possible and reaches the effect that was the purpose from the beginning. It will therefore be a message from the debate here today to those it concerns.

I have now been quite broad in my framing. I also intended to highlight the reservation I moved for approval. It concerns that the advisory council established in 2018 shall be given a strengthened mandate. From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we would have preferred that it was placed in the Statsrådsberedningen. Now we have three different types of councils that are to facilitate for the politicians to make wise decisions in this area. Who knows, in five years perhaps they will have been merged into one if it is considered more expedient and successful. But at the moment, we have three.

The Council on Legislation is what has existed since before. We need to ensure that it receives an expanded mandate to comment on and point out deficient consequence analyses from the politics so that we can obtain a better basis and ensure that the decisions we make in this chamber hit in the way we intended them to. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats have long pushed for this issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal in the report and the rejection of all motions.

Entrepreneurship is one of the pillars of Sweden's prosperity. Small and large companies create jobs, innovation, and growth, but many entrepreneurs feel that they are being stifled by regulatory burdens and heavy bureaucracy. Today we are debating the report on regulatory simplifications for companies, and I want to clearly emphasize that this government, with the Christian Democrats at the forefront, from the first day in government has prioritized making it easier to start and run businesses in Sweden.

Entrepreneurs spend an average of ten hours a week on administration. Bureaucracy builds a sluggish organization, which in turn becomes counterproductive as the entrepreneur becomes less flexible and adaptable towards, for example, the customer and the market.

We have already taken a number of important measures to reduce the regulatory burden on companies. We have established the Simplification Council, which actively works to identify and propose simplifications for Swedish companies. We have also appointed an implementation council to ensure that EU rules are implemented at a minimum level without unnecessary extra requirements. It is of the utmost importance that our Swedish companies should be able to compete on equal terms, and that means we must stop making it harder for them than for their European competitors.

Mr. Speaker! We are doing more. We see it as crucial that the processing times of government agencies are shortened and that the contact between agencies and companies is improved. Permit processes shall be predictable and efficient. Here, we have taken measures by tasking several agencies to review and streamline their permit assessments. Furthermore, a welcome review of the environmental assessment process is currently underway to make it more flexible, predictable, and accessible. We refuse to accept that it takes several years to obtain permits for investments that can create jobs and growth.

We also take the next step to modernize and digitalize companies' interactions with authorities. We want to reduce the Catch-22 situation that entrepreneurs testify to by introducing a guarantee that companies only need to submit a piece of information to authorities once.

By further developing platforms such as Verksamt.se, we also ensure that companies only need to provide information once, and we create a more efficient and smooth process for the entrepreneur.

Mr. Speaker! The world around us is restless. We see an increased need to prioritize Sweden's security and defense, and this requires economic resources and stability. A strong and competitive business sector is crucial for us to be able to finance our defense, secure our values, and maintain our welfare. We must give Swedish companies the best conditions to succeed, especially in times of uncertainty and global economic turbulence.

Sweden is a country characterized by growth, innovation, high-level expertise, and welfare. We have the potential to be world leaders in several areas, and through that, we can get more people into work, better care, better schools, and secure families, which leads to a welfare of the highest class.

By investing in Sweden's future and implementing reforms that accelerate Swedish growth, we do so by reducing red tape, and by doing so, we create a more predictable and business-friendly policy.

I also want, Mr. Speaker, to highlight three core values that we Christian Democrats bring to our political work, namely care, everyday life, and values. These core values are based on us ensuring that we care for the entrepreneur so that we can understand them, so that we can act on everyday challenges and the fundamental values that the entrepreneur builds their company on.

As late as last week, I had an open and honest conversation with representatives from several companies, and I once again received a valuable insight into the entrepreneurs' everyday lives. The entrepreneurs show an inner motivation and passion for their companies and society. They are moved by those who are unemployed or do not have an education. They also tell about how too much time is spent navigating through all the rules and heavy administration to do the right thing. They also highlight some simplifications that the government has made, for example, not having to submit paper receipts. Digital receipts are sufficient, and it is a great success.

The Christian Democrats have as a basis that politics is value-driven. A value-driven leadership is based on the opposite when it comes to red tape for entrepreneurs and cost-driving administration. Swedish companies want to grow, and now we are removing the obstacles. Regulatory simplifications reduce a heavy burden and free up time and resources that can instead be used to develop the business.

There is still much to do, Mr. Speaker, but we are on the right track. The Christian Democrats in the government will continue to push to create a better business climate for increased competitiveness. A strong business sector is a prerequisite for Sweden to continue to be a strong welfare nation. Therefore, we are working purposefully for the entrepreneur's freedom from red tape and costly administration.

And with this, Mr. Speaker, I would like once again to move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin my speech by moving for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 6.

There is probably no doubt that regulatory simplification has never been as hot a topic as it is today, especially with the omnibus proposals that the EU Commission has recently presented. It has brought to the fore the question of having a better business climate in Sweden, and above all in Europe, so that our companies can remain competitive on the global market.

We Social Democrats naturally welcome the Commission's work to constantly improve the rules in the union by promoting entrepreneurship and new ideas. But it is worth remembering that the EU is unique in combining a relatively good business climate with high ambitions for our jointly set climate goals and respecting workers' rights and democracy.

The EU and Sweden have dared to take the lead in these issues, which has also led to our companies contributing to changing the world. When a large Swedish company decides to transition, it happens across the entire company in the entire world. We must safeguard and be proud of that.

Simplification of regulations cannot simply mean that we should lower our ambitions. By utilizing the possibilities of digitalization, it will become smoother to create the right support for small and medium-sized enterprises, so that they can transition without the cost becoming too high or the regulatory burden becoming too great. We must also ensure that we strengthen the internal market, which is crucial, above all, for Swedish companies. We shall continue the work of being the world's best continent when it comes to ambitious climate work and safeguarding workers' rights.

Mr. Speaker! I believe that we, at least on paper, are in agreement in the chamber that we do not want to compete with low wages. We do not want to compete with carbon emissions. We want to compete, as we have always done in Sweden, with qualitative products that are competitive precisely because we safeguard climate goals, human rights, and democracy. We know that in a world where we collectively stand up for these issues, we can trade more with each other and achieve a less protectionist world.

The government and the Sweden Democrats need to reflect on what their legacy will be. As has emerged from previous exchanges of remarks, there have been many years of high-handedness when it comes to issues of regulatory simplification. But now we see that it has almost been three years since the Tidö government took office, and so far, not a single regulatory simplification that has created more jobs in Sweden has actually been introduced. There has not been a single regulatory simplification that has caused fewer companies to go bankrupt. The reality is that a record number of bankruptcies are occurring in Sweden today.

A regulatory simplification council has been established, as we have heard today. An implementation council has also been boasted about today. Some things can be easily checked off on one's list. Authorities have been tasked with working on regulatory simplification, but at the same time, a choice has been made to make cuts to the state's authorities. It will be exciting to see how they will work with additional assignments but with fewer resources.

Sweden is a strong innovation nation, and we must continue to be that. We are one of the leading startup nations. In The Global Startup Ecosystem Index, Sweden is in sixth place for the highest number of started startups. We are therefore the best in the EU. One should keep in mind that Sweden is sinking in the ranking, but we are still the best in the EU.

Many companies testify to problems with scaling up their operations. We have a relatively small domestic market in Sweden, but the increasingly tangible lack of capital and difficulties in finding the right competence are some of the factors that lead to many entrepreneurs experiencing that it is difficult for them to scale up the companies. Consequently, the companies cannot become large companies that contribute to job creation, innovation, and making the world a better place.

The government has simply not prioritized the companies. Nor have proposals been put forward that facilitate the utilization of society-critical innovations. A purposeful structure for innovation support and increased cooperation between academia, the business sector, and of course politics is needed. We need a clear strategy so that we can achieve a robust ecosystem for innovations that focuses on how we can improve our regulatory frameworks so that they work for our entrepreneurs. It is not about just focusing on what the Moderaterna call a wave of deregulation, but we must conduct proper impact assessments to ensure that regulatory simplifications occur in dialogue with the companies. We shall look at how it becomes easier for companies to create jobs in Sweden, while simultaneously maintaining our high ambitions regarding climate goals and workers' rights.

We Social Democrats believe that it is possible to improve regulations by taking advantage of the possibilities of digitalization and, together with the business sector, identifying which rules need to be changed. Furthermore, we shall provide the right support to our agencies so that they can promote entrepreneurship and not be bureaucratic hurdles. This is something the government needs to focus on, but my impression is that it is not being done.

Sweden needs a regulatory framework that promotes entrepreneurship and that takes the lead on workers' rights and the climate.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I had not intended to take the floor because I do not consider the Social Democrats to be relevant in the debate on rule simplification. But given the rhetoric that the Social Democrats are presenting, I chose to do so anyway.

For those taking part in the debate, it is important to note that there is a reservation from the Social Democrats, which they have otherwise together with the Left Party.

This is the major report on regulatory simplification, where the government accounts for what has been done and the parliamentary parties have the opportunity to submit proposals. The Sweden Democrats have three times as many reservations as the Social Democrats, despite the fact that we cooperate with the three government parties within the framework of the Tidö agreement and despite the fact that the Social Democrats are the largest party in the Swedish Parliament.

Mr. Speaker! It becomes a bit strange that the Riksdag's largest party criticizes the Tidö parties and has such a high level of tail-chasing when it comes to what we do or do not do, when the lack of proposals from the party's own is fundamental.

In the reservation from the Social Democrats and the Left Party, it is written that short processing times, good service, and appropriate rules are good. It is fantastic. Who is against that? Who opposes that? Work is ongoing on it. But where are the concrete proposals?

Mr. Speaker! If one is to have such a high level of tail-wagging, I mean that one can come forward with concrete proposals, reasonably in committee motions and requests that are handled in the report we are debating today. I can promise that if good proposals come from the Social Democrats in this area, which is prioritized for the Sweden Democrats, I am absolutely open to discussing them. The proposals are welcome before we stand here in the chamber. That is when one can get work done.

But given that there are no such motions from the Social Democrats, there is nothing for the Tidö parties to learn from the Social Democrats. It is also obvious after eight years of Social Democratic rule that these issues were completely deprioritized. I hope that we will avoid seeing that in the future.

Please feel free to come up with proposals now, Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro, and we will take care of them. I am, in fact, convinced that you will not do so if you come to power again.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I just wanted to wait out the applause from the cheering squad Moderaterna, who are the Sweden Democrats' new best friends.

This constant accountability from an opposition party is strange. We are not in the government, Tobias Andersson. But you are the largest party in the government base. I accounted for a number of things that can be done. And I believe that the government power is central when it comes to working with just rule simplifications.

It is not the Social Democrats who will have a legacy of record-breaking bankruptcies, Tobias Andersson. It is the Sweden Democrats. And it is not the Social Democrats who will have a legacy of the second highest unemployment in Europe. It is the Sweden Democrats.

When it comes to the fact that we have a high tail-end in issues regarding regulatory simplification, I clearly highlighted in my speech that we want to maintain Sweden's position and competitiveness when it comes to high-reaching climate goals. We also safeguard workers' rights, and in dialogue with the business sector, we improve our regulatory frameworks to reach our goals. But we also want to make it better and simpler to be an entrepreneur in our country. That is achieved by having the power of government.

My proposal is therefore that Tobias Andersson has talks with the government parties and discusses how they can do better for entrepreneurs in Sweden.

To hold an opposition party accountable is doomed to fail, Tobias Andersson.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Social Democratic efforts to simplify rules are also doomed to fail, Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro. We have seen that.

With that said, I am the first to say that I would have gladly seen us have managed more in this area and that we worked more expeditiously. One must be honest and say that it is only now and moving forward that we will see the effects of much of what we have started. It is a bitter fact that if we do not change the Swedish administrative model radically, it will not be done differently in the future either. I can be self-critical about that.

But I am also open to concrete proposals. Stating self-evident truths and saying that it would be good if these problems were fixed does not solve anything.

Just because one is in opposition does not mean one needs to be without proposals. In my speech, I explained that when the Sverigedemokraterna were in opposition, we had an entire motion regarding only regulatory simplification work. Much of that has now been taken care of by the Tidö parties. The Socialdemokraterna could also have placed concrete requests on the Riksdag's table in committee motions when they are in opposition, in the same way as the Sverigedemokraterna did when we were in opposition.

It becomes a somewhat rhetorical question whether the member believes there would have been more or fewer unemployed, more or fewer bankruptcies, and more or less growth if the Tidö parties had not actively worked on issues of regulatory simplification. Would it have generated more or fewer bankruptcies and unemployed, and more or less growth if we had not introduced the Simplification Council and the Implementation Council, removed the danish license and the hotel license, allowed farm sales, which will take place now, given the authorities simplification mandates, and appointed a group of state secretaries who work actively with simplification work in the various departments?

Mr. Speaker! I am quite convinced that if we had not done this, it would look significantly worse today. This is where the dividing line lies. The Social Democrats have not wanted to do this, and there are also no other proposals in the area.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am still quite surprised that one shrugs off responsibility in an issue for which one is ultimately responsible. Tobias Andersson himself said that the Sweden Democrats for several years have been the party in this chamber and our committee that has submitted motions regarding simplification of rules. But after nearly three years with the Sweden Democrats in the government support, absolutely nothing happens.

It is clear that it could have been worse – absolutely. We know that. But it is quite bad now, Tobias Andersson. There are record numbers of bankruptcies. There have never been this many bankruptcies in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! When a company goes bankrupt, I think it is sad, not only for the individual entrepreneur but also for the whole society, especially if the company has employees. Now there have been a record number of bankruptcies. Sweden's largest bankruptcy in history, Northvolt, also occurred recently. We have seen Tobias Andersson gloat over Northvolt's bankruptcy – regarding caring about Swedish business.

We have also seen the Sweden Democrats submit proposals to abolish Vinnova, our innovation agency. It is precisely innovation that the whole world is investing in, but then we are to abolish our innovation agency.

This government cut almost half a billion for just innovations as the first thing they did. How are you then going to work with regulatory simplification for those companies, Tobias Andersson? You have created a volatility in Sweden's business sector that no one seems to like.

It is true, then, that there is a difference between Sweden Democrat and Social Democratic industrial policy. We safeguard Swedish entrepreneurs and Swedish growth. And we want to create jobs in Sweden. We do not take kindly to Swedish bankruptcies.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Now the Liberals and this government are making it easier to be an entrepreneur in Sweden. Our ambition has for a long time been precisely to reduce the regulatory burden for companies. Rules are needed, but the rules we have must be well-motivated and few. If they are considered too many, too complicated, or too outdated, there is a great risk that people's willingness to follow them is undermined. It also makes it much harder to be an entrepreneur and run a company if one cannot understand why a regulatory framework exists.

Much can be improved regarding running businesses in Sweden. Sometimes we unfortunately see how the public sector stands in the way of the private sector. It can involve the exercise of authority that is perceived to hinder rather than help companies, but also unreasonably long processing times or permit processes that drag on indefinitely.

We have for several years seen how companies' costs have increased as a result of our regulations. Some calculations estimate that several billion are spent on rule implementation, which is completely unreasonable. It underscores the need for regulatory simplifications, which this government also proposes. We need to significantly reduce the regulatory burden. We need to reduce the administrative costs for companies. We want entrepreneurs to be able to focus on their core business instead of administration.

Mr. Speaker! Some things have already been done by this government. The simplification council that has been appointed and which aims to reduce the regulatory burden on companies has already been mentioned. One must look at how existing Swedish regulations can be changed for the better. We are only at the beginning of the work, and we look forward to what will come out of it.

The government has initiated several larger projects. I can give a few concrete examples. As previously mentioned, the requirement for hotel permits has been removed. My personal favorite is that we will allow farm sales. It also concerns things such as removing the requirement to keep receipts and other accounting information in paper form. These are some small and larger steps in the right direction.

But it is clear that we want to do more. From the Liberals' side, in order to continue on the concrete path, we want to see an abolished food requirement to facilitate for companies within the restaurant industry. I believe that it would promote job creation and tax revenues. On a slightly larger plane, I think there is reason to once again underline and emphasize property rights, which are central for the business sector and are a central prerequisite for a functioning market economy. They should be strengthened and clarified.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to have a forward-looking Sweden with innovation and competitiveness, we must change Swedish bureaucracy and regulatory burden. It must become both simpler and cheaper to run businesses in Sweden. It also bears underlining that it is the business sector that lays the foundation for the welfare we have in Sweden. To facilitate so that we get more and more expansive companies is good not only for the economy but for the whole society.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the Committee on Industry's report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 6.

Small businesses are an engine in the Swedish economy. They create jobs, drive innovation, and contribute to our welfare. But all too often, these companies are hindered by complicated regulations, long processing times, and a lack of agency cooperation. We in Vänsterpartiet want to see a real simplification of rules that makes it easier for small businesses to start and grow while we ensure fair conditions and labor law protection. We also, of course, keep our environmental and climate goals high on the agenda.

It is about creating a business climate where entrepreneurs are not disadvantaged by bureaucratic hurdles or discriminatory assessments. Contact with authorities is A and O, especially for entrepreneurs with a foreign background. The fact is that a large part of the new companies in Sweden are started by people with a foreign background. These companies play a decisive role for employment, particularly in our suburbs, where unemployment is often higher than the average.

One of the biggest problems that small business owners face is the complex rules and the time-consuming bureaucracy. For a small business owner, it can be crucial to quickly receive a decision on permits or financing. Long processing times risk knocking out small businesses before they have even had a chance to establish themselves. We therefore need to shorten these times through increased digitalization and better coordination between authorities.

The government has spoken a lot about simplifying regulations, but in practice we see few improvements. Authorities need sufficient resources to be able to streamline their processes and improve the service towards small businesses. If state and municipal authorities do not receive budget space to work with simplifying regulations, it will not be done.

The public sector also has an important role in creating stability for small businesses, for example through procurement. Municipalities and regions purchase goods and services that can be crucial for a company's survival. When the public sector cuts back, the opportunities for small businesses to compete and develop decrease. This is extremely important today, when we see a wave of bankruptcies all around the country.

At the same time, we must not forget that a significant part of future jobs and entrepreneurship will come from innovation. Many of the companies that can lead the green transition start through research at universities and colleges. But cuts in the education system threaten this development. If universities and research institutes are forced to reduce their laboratory premises and teaching hours, the number of innovative companies will also decrease. We must therefore ensure that education and research have the resources required to enable new companies within, for example, green technology. There, we also have a role in ensuring that regulatory simplifications benefit the companies that are at the forefront of the transition.

Mr. Speaker! We need a policy that benefits small businesses, not by lowering wages or worsening working conditions, but by making it much easier to run a business. We need shorter processing times and better cooperation between authorities. Digitalization is crucial for this. More support programs targeted at entrepreneurs with a foreign background are needed. We also need to reduce the administrative burden. One way could be to remove the sick pay responsibility for companies with fewer than ten employees. Many small business owners testify that it requires quite a lot of administration. Increased resources for research and innovation to strengthen future entrepreneurship, especially in worker-owned or cooperative companies, is something that has also been raised by Vänsterpartiet, as well as a more just public procurement, where small business owners have a reasonable chance to participate. It does not look that way today.

Simplification of regulations is super important, but it also requires many other things around it to achieve the effect we hope for. I hope that we can create a business climate where more companies are started than what is the case today, where more people get work – considering all the unemployed we have today – and where we simultaneously build a more sustainable and just economy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! It has been said earlier today, but it is worth repeating: Last year, the rules cost Swedish companies 377.5 billion kronor to comply with, according to Tillväxtverket's own calculations. In one year, that is more than the historical upscaling of the defense – the 300 billion that the Prime Minister just presented. It is 6.4 percent of GDP.

One wonders what it is that costs. Fundamentally, it is good intentions and a total lack of understanding of how companies function. It is about reporting to authorities, but it is also increasingly about companies placing requirements on other companies because authorities demand it. One such example is one of the rules that contributed to increasing the regulatory cost during the last year Tillväxtverket measured; it concerned the effects of new measures against money laundering and terrorist financing. This is something that we have decided here in the chamber and which is good. But according to Tillväxtverket's calculations, it cost the auditors 180 million kronor to implement it.

Of course, it does not cost the auditors, but it is for the small businesses that use the auditors that it costs something. The small companies must first submit the information that the auditors request from them. Then they will also receive a higher bill from the auditors, because it is clear that they pass the costs on. It becomes a double cost for the very smallest companies that are at the end of the line.

There we have the answer as to why that which is well and thoroughly considered here in the chamber can have such effects out there at the companies.

Many of us were at Svenskt Näringsliv's round table discussion last week. I picked up two fresh examples there. The first concerns the waste directive. It is about the pallets that goods are transported on, Euro-pallets.

The company that manufactures them must charge a fee from the person who is to purchase the pallet. Then, the company that has purchased the pallet must pay a fee when they are to deposit it after having reused it many times. It is a double fee for handling the same waste.

The Public Procurement Act should help us to procure properly. It results in small businesses being excluded in many ways. It occurs, for example, that if one is to build a preschool, the municipality would prefer that one has built a preschool before.

It may sound like a reasonable and sound requirement. But it has the effect that no new actors enter, and then we wonder why it is expensive for the municipalities, the regions, and the state to build. We impose far too many requirements and regulations that are completely unnecessary and which destroy the supply on the market.

Regulatory complications affect companies differently. Often they pay for the handling. They purchase a legal service, an auditing service, or an accounting service. They perform pre-inspections to ensure they won't get caught when the authorities arrive.

I received an example of a smaller farm where one is now not allowed to lay out rat poison oneself if one does not have a license. If one does not have the license to do so, one must send a company of the type Anticimex there, and that also costs extra. It is something that everyone in all times has done themselves.

One also, of course, has to pay for inspections from authorities and municipalities. One also spends one's own time on evenings, nights, and weekends on this hassle. What is it that is stopping this avalanche of regulations?

We are working on removing what exists. We spoke earlier in the exchange about the Simplification Council, which I said is good. But it is still a bit weak. It also concerns preventing new rules. That is what the implementation council is to do. It is good, as I also said earlier. But it is still a bit weak.

Since then, we have the Council on Legislation, this old piece that would need a major renovation. I quote: "Both the Council on Legislation and the Business Sweden Council on Legislation agree that the government must take a stand and ensure that the quality of the impact assessments is raised. It is high time to create an opportunity for the Council on Legislation to demand re-referral or for deficient impact assessments to be supplemented."

It needs to be combined with an opportunity for the council to enter the rule-making process early to highlight problems before it is too late. Furthermore, the evaluations of the rules need to be quality-checked to ensure that they hold up.

It is not possible to continue in the same ruts year after year and believe that the result will be different. The risk is that the influx of complications will overshadow the ongoing simplification work, all while the companies continue to be burdened by an enormous regulatory burden.

I quoted the Chairman of the Rule Council and the Business Rule Committee because I could not say it better myself. I know that. I resigned as Chairman of the Rule Council precisely because Ibrahim Baylan did not listen to what was needed for the impact assessments to become better. It also concerned what resources the Rule Council needed or that the impact assessments had to be included much earlier in the process.

I know that the government wants to do something but that it doesn't have the strength to do so right now. It feels as if the government has been struck by the disease that has a very good name in English, but which one should not use in the chamber. I call it: It is nothing that we have invented, so we do not care.

The government must ensure that the Rule Council functions as a brake. But it is painful. One must deal with referral structures and procedures that have functioned well for decades in the Government Offices. It requires a greater push than what we have seen today.

As a Member of Parliament, I want a price tag on the proposals that we decide on here in the chamber. I want to know that it cost 180 million to introduce the type of rules that would give the auditors more to do.

If we believe that 377 billion is a problem for growth and that growth, a larger GDP and more to share is crucial for managing infrastructure debt, defense debt, energy debt and education debt, then it is smart to invest a few tens of millions more in the Fiscal Council and break with the Government Offices.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 4 under point 2.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Right now, regulatory simplifications for companies are on the agenda in most contexts in the political sphere. At the beginning of the year, the EU Commission presented its competitiveness compass, where regulatory improvement is an important part. The Commission has also presented the first so-called omnibus package, where there are proposals to simplify EU rules to increase the competitiveness of European companies.

I and Miljöpartiet consider it to be of great importance that laws and regulations are clear, transparent and fair. We are very positive towards regulatory improvements that lead to unnecessary or duplicate legislation being cleared or unclear legislation being clarified.

But as several have previously said, there are laws and rules for a reason. They have not been introduced lightly and without thought. We now see that many so-called regulatory simplifications instead risk loosening or postponing newly introduced legislation for climate, environment, and human rights. This is, of course, something that we oppose. We say yes to improvements, but no to loosenings and delays.

Mr. Speaker! In the business community, people desire clear legislation. But above all, they desire long-term legislation that is clear about where we are headed. The worst thing one can know is volatility and uncertainty. It is something that often happens today when completely new legislation is loosened and postponed.

It is problematic as much of Sweden's and Europe's competitiveness lies in our ability to be at the forefront of the climate transition. It can also create an injustice between companies that have taken responsibility for being at the forefront and made investments that then need to compete with companies that are not at the same level.

There is also a risk that investments that have now been made will feel unnecessary for the companies that have made them when the legislation they based their investments on is postponed or shelved.

Mr. Speaker! I said earlier that rules exist for a reason and that one should be careful when changing them. This is not news to any of us legislators sitting here today. But now I still want to advocate for so-called regulatory sandboxes. It is something that might not sound very exciting but can be really fun. They are also called regulatory greenhouses or simply regulatory pilot projects, which perhaps is not much clearer.

What does that mean? Well, a regulatory sandbox is a tool that can be used to give actors the opportunity, within clearly defined frameworks and time periods, to test and trial, for example, new innovative products or services that would otherwise have been prohibited because they conflict with laws and other regulations.

Regulatory sandboxes that have been tested in other countries have often been focused on innovation within energy or mobility. For example, energy cooperatives, digital networks, energy storage, smart grids, and energy efficiency have been tested.

At the beginning of the year, Vinnova submitted a report to the government on regulatory sandboxes for net-zero technology. That report is, of course, interesting. The social benefit of a regulatory sandbox is that new innovations can be tested in reality at an earlier stage and that any problems can be detected before decisions are made on legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Climate change is escalating today with increasing emissions. Already, we are hovering around the 1.5-degree goal. Today, we exceed six of the nine planetary boundaries. It is clear that both decisive action and new thinking are required to be able to transform society at the pace required to curb climate change, stop the loss of biodiversity, and develop socially secure societies for all.

Regulatory sandboxes could be part of the solution to get changes in place faster. It could be one of the tools we need to quickly develop new solutions that contribute to fossil-free status, a circular economy, and an environmentally sustainable society.

Simplification of regulations for companies

But, as I have repeated previously, regulatory frameworks are built to protect the population and our nature and to create stability in our economy. When one removes regulatory frameworks to speed up processes, it needs to be done with great deliberation and clear limitations. That is why it is important that regulatory sandboxes are primarily limited to activities with great social benefit, where a rapid climate transition could serve as a main focus.

I would therefore like to move for approval of reservation 8 in the committee report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)